You are here

Evaluation Reports

Some evaluation reports are public and can be downloaded from this website, while others are restricted to MSF users and can only be accessed via Tukul. This limitation is mainly due to the sensitive nature of the operational contexts and the resulting content. However, there are internal discussions about making all evaluation reports publicly searchable. If you are an MSF association member, reports are made available on various associate platforms such as www.insideOCB.com.

The objective of this lessons learnt exercise was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the UNITAID grant governance and management model for project achievements in terms of medical (and related) outcomes, strategic decisions, the potential for collaboration between multiple MSF entities and to leverage the learnings for replication in future projects. The exercise showed that the project directly delivered a new, more effective, simpler and much cheaper treatment to patients across seven countries.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCG, under the management of the Vienna Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Hugues Juillerat, Sharon McClenaghan and Glenn O’Neil of TRAASS International.

SSP was formed in the aftermath of a high profile depot crisis in South Africa in 2012/3, with six organisations, already dealing with drug stock outs joining forces to tackle the issue. The different organisations brought different skills to the table. Largely focused on anti-retrovirals (ARVs) and TB medication, from the beginning the SSP has tasked itself to hold government accountable, to perform a watchdog role and to present the patient view on stock outs.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCB, under the management of the Stockholm Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Andrew McKenzie and Timothy McCann.

This review was commissioned by the International Board of MSF to reflect on the lessons learned for Movement governance from the early months of the MSF response to the recent Ebola crisis in West Africa. It focuses on the first six months of the Ebola outbreak (from April to September 2014), and on Movement governance issues only. The findings are based on analysis of relevant records, minutes of platform meetings, and interviews with a cross-section of the key people involved in Movement governance during this period.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF International, under the management of the Stockholm Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Marie-Pierre Allié and Ken Caldwell.

The objective of this review was to assess the response of OCG, focusing on the Freetown Prince of Wales Ebola Treatment Centre, Sierra Leone (open Dec 2014 to end of Feb 2015) and to reflect on the ability to incorporate “real time lessons learned” during the ongoing management of the outbreak. The evaluation focused on operational infrastructure management (including laboratories), medical & nursing care management, epidemiological control measures, community engagement & mobilisation, capacity building, relationship with other actors and research.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCG, under the management of the Vienna Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Claire Bayntun and Stuart Alexander Zimble.

MSF OCB commissioned an extensive multi-sectoral critical review of its Ebola intervention. The summary report highlights key findings from all specific reports and draws global conclusions. Lessons have been identified both, for future large scale emergency responses as well as for a next Ebola response. Many of lessons identified are not entirely new, but their importance has been strongly accentuated by the extremity of this health crisis. Priority recommendations are listed in the summary report, while specific recommendations are made in the respective reports.

Given that community HIV testing is often more expensive than HF-based testing, this evaluation aims to fully understand the relative advantages of community testing modalities. MSF has been providing 3 modalities of community HIV testing in KZN since late 2012, to complement the standard, health facility (HF)-based testing provided by the Department of Health. Fixed sites (FS), Mobile 1-Stop Shops (M1SS) and Door-to-Door Community Health Agents (CHAPs) provide testing throughout the project area of Eshowe, Mbongolowane and the adjacent rural areas.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCB, under the management of the Stockholm Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Richard Bedell.

Full version and short version available. This evaluation of the viral load (VL) monitoring system was commissioned in order to more fully understand the experience and outcomes of the introduction and scale-up of VL in one district of Zimbabwe but also undertaken with a view to the national scale-up of VL monitoring, and the general issue of VL monitoring in sub-Saharan Africa in light of the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets. The report details five clear recommendations to reach undetectable viral load.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCB, under the management of the Stockholm Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Richard Bedell.

During the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa, MSF built a number of Ebola Treatment Centres (ETCs). MSF set up centres in the three countries at different moments and with different MSF Operational Sections, which resulted in a heterogenic collection of solutions. This review was conducted jointly for all MSF operational centers (OCs). It was commissioned by OCA and was conducted as part of the OCB Ebola review.

This publication was produced at the request of MSF OCA coordinated within a broader review on OCB's response to the Ebola emergency, under the management of the Stockholm Evaluation Unit. It was prepared independently by Veronica Sanchez Carrera.

This is the internal reflection report for OCAs Ebola intervention in Sierra Leone. While there are numerous workshops and reflections being organized across theMSF movement, and this OCA report may form part of the larger process, its primary function willreflect on how we as OCA responded, what we learnt, and what we need to do for possible futureepidemics. The report covers discussions around Operational Decision Making, HQ setup and field supprt, Biosafety, Cinical care in EMCs and Duty of care to our international staff.